The Impact of Immediate and Delayed Rewards on Task-Switching Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Switching between different tasks incurs switch costs. Previous research has demonstrated that rewards can enhance performance in cognitive tasks. However, prior studies have primarily focused on the overall improvement in cognitive task performance, with limited research on how different types of rewards function under various task conditions. This study aims to investigate the distinct effects of immediate and delayed rewards on cognitive task performance in different task conditions (repeated trials and task-switching trials) and to explore the underlying neural mechanisms, particularly focusing on how rewards influence attention allocation during the concurrent processing of multiple cues. METHODS: This study recruited 27 college students (average age 19 years old, 10 males and 17 females). A cue-based task-switching paradigm incorporating immediate and delayed rewards was employed. The study examined the effects of immediate and delayed rewards on cognitive task performance in repeated trials and task-switching trials. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to investigate the neural mechanisms underlying reward effects on attention allocation. RESULTS: Behavioral results indicated that immediate rewards significantly enhanced performance in repeated trials compared to delayed rewards. In contrast, no significant difference between immediate and delayed rewards was observed in task-switching trials. ERP results showed that immediate rewards induced a larger P300 amplitude than delayed rewards under the task repetition condition. No P300 difference was found between immediate and delayed rewards under the task-switching condition. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that rewards enhance task performance by optimizing the allocation of attention to the ongoing task when multiple cues are processed concurrently. When additional resources are required to process task-related cues, there may be insufficient remaining capacity to effectively process reward cues, which could be essential for the optimal completion of the task. These results support the Expected Value of Control (EVC) theory in task-switching scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".